Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

KN4M 12-27-06

Expand Messages
  • Robert Sterling
    Please send as far and wide as possible. Thanks, Robert Sterling Editor, The Konformist http://www.konformist.com A couple new interviews with Adam Gorightly
    Message 1 of 1 , Dec 27, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Please send as far and wide as possible.

      Robert Sterling
      Editor, The Konformist

      A couple new interviews with Adam Gorightly are up! Check out my
      recent interview with R.U. Sirius discussing "The Prankster and the
      Conspiracy" at:


      And if that wasn't enough to make you pee your pants, Part One of a
      two part interview with "Out There Radio" is now available at:


      Part One will also cover "The Prankster and the Conspiracy". Part
      Two, yet to be posted, will get into my latest book, "The Beast of
      Adam Gorightly: Collected Rantings 1992-2004." Don't you dare miss

      And while you're listening to wacky stuff on internet radio, you
      might as well navigate over to:


      and check out "Untamed Dimensions", a brand spanking new
      blogtalkradio program hosted by yours truly. My most recent
      interview features the charming and irrepressible Alexandra "Chica"
      Bruce, discussing--among other things--the weird sex practices of
      Tibetan Buddhists, not to mention the mind-bending mysteries
      surrounding the Montauk Experiments.

      On the next episode of "Untamed Dimensions", scheduled for broadcast
      on December 7, I'll be joined by my guests Jeff Turner and Douglas
      Hawes who reveal "The Secret History of the Summer of Love", a
      conspiratorial cosmology involving `60's sex kitten Tuesday Weld, an
      alleged descendant from a bloodline of Druidic witches, who secretly
      influenced such counterculture luminaries as the Beatles and the
      Rolling Stones, exercising her occult power in the realms of
      political intrigue!

      Also (if I haven't already thoroughly bombarded your brain with
      astounding proportions of bulldada!) check out the latest edition
      of "Paranoia: The Conspiracy Magazine" featuring an article once
      again by yours truly, entitled "Manson Family Secrets: Charlie, The
      Process and RFK".

      Peace. Out.


      Greg Palast- Found: Saddam's Weapon of Mass Destruction
      By Greg Palast
      [Washington] December 3, 2006

      This photo of condemned Iraqi ex-strongman Saddam Hussein amid
      exotic weapons of mass destruction, taken just before the liberation
      of Iraq, was released Saturday by the White House.

      Proclaiming that the long-awaited evidence of Saddam's deadly
      weaponry was now irrefutable, Presidential spokesman Tony Snow
      displayed the picture of Saddam with bow and arrows [read the
      original NY Times article] at a special briefing for the Washington
      press corp.

      "These are 'dirty' arrows, capable of delivering radioactive
      material wherever shot," said Snow. While conceding that there was
      as yet no evidence that Saddam had the capability to 'nuclearize'
      these warheads, sources close to the Office of Special Plans at the
      Pentagon stated that, "The purpose of a 'dirty arrow' is not to kill
      but to spread destructive mass panic." The official, who spoke on
      condition of anonymity, added "Imagine the deadly effect if one of
      these babies was shot into the goal post at the Super Bowl game
      during Shakira's half-time show."

      Administration defense policy advisor Richard Perle, speaking from
      the American Enterprise Institute, noted that Saddam clearly had the
      means to greatly multiply the deadly panic effect of a dirty arrow
      attack by use of a "war whoop," which Perle demonstrated by
      repeatedly placing the closed fingers of one hand against his lips
      while intoning, "whoo-whoo-whoo-whoo."

      The discovery of hard evidence of Saddam's dirty arrow program
      vindicates the claims of Iraqi exile leader Ahmad Chalabi that
      Saddam had concealed large caches of war paint and battle feathers.

      During a scheduled impromptu chat with the press held at his ranch
      in Crawford, Texas, the President said, "Well, this should put an
      end to my critics and the nay-sayers and the cutters and runners who
      said we were fibbing about Saddam's WMDs."

      Because of the extreme danger to the American public of such arrows,
      Mr. Bush said his father, the former president, had given him for
      his recent birthday a bow and arrows "with these little rubber
      suction thingies on the end."

      Former Secretary of State Colin Powell, reached in Baghdad, when
      asked about the new dirty arrow revelations said, "You're kidding
      me, right?" General Powell was in Iraq to continue the hunt for the
      biological weapons laboratories whose photos he displayed to the
      United Nations in the lead-up to the 2003 invasion.

      "Hey, a picture's worth a thousand words -- or fifty thousand
      lives," said the General, laughing hysterically as he locked himself
      inside one of Saddam's "mobile laboratories" filled with nothing but
      Greg Palast is the author of the bestseller, "Armed Madhouse: Who's
      Afraid of Osama Wolf? and other Dispatches from the Front Lines of
      the Class War."

      Donate $75 or more to the Investigative Fund (tax-deductible) and
      receive a signed copy of Armed Madhouse (hardbound). Gifts can be
      personalized (give us the name of the recipient in the "message

      "Armed Madhouse is great fun. Palast, detective style, provides …
      pieces of the secret puzzle." - The New Yorker

      A New Statesman book of the year.



      Press Release # 114-06
      Tuesday, December 5, 2006

      CONTACT: (212) 788-5290; 788-3058 (After Hours)
      Andrew Tucker (atucker@...)
      Sara Markt (smarkt@...)


      Health Department Facilitates Restaurant Implementation, Ensures
      Phased Removal of Artificial Trans Fat from Restaurants by July 1,

      NEW YORK CITY – December 5, 2006 – Restaurants are a major source of
      artificial trans fat, but customers currently have no practical way
      to know whether food they eat contains it. Today, the New York City
      Board of Health voted unanimously to make New York City even
      healthier by requiring that all City restaurants remove artificial
      trans fat over the next 18 months. New York City is the first
      location in the nation to ensure removal of artificial trans fat
      from restaurants. Artificial trans fat increases the risk of heart
      disease, stroke, and death by increasing bad cholesterol and
      decreasing good cholesterol. The final notice of adoption is online
      at http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/public/notice-adoption-

      Health Commissioner Dr. Thomas R. Frieden said, "The day we
      introduced this proposal, we emphasized that we would review public
      comments carefully. The message we heard was clear: New Yorkers
      overwhelmingly favor action to get artificial trans fat out of their
      restaurants. We also heard from restaurant operators who voiced real
      difficulties making the transition, and we've changed implementation
      plans to help restaurants implement the new regulations."

      Background Information about Revisions to Trans Fat Proposal
      This proposal allows restaurants six months to switch to oils,
      margarines and shortening used for frying and spreading that have
      less than 0.5 grams of trans fat per serving. After 18 months, all
      other food items – including all margarines and shortenings – must
      contain less than 0.5 grams of trans fat per serving. In response to
      comments received, the Department will:

      Allow more time (18 months instead of 6) to replace artificial trans
      fat used in baking and in deep-frying yeast doughs and cake batters
      Provide technical support for restaurants and bakeries
      Helpline staffed by recognized culinary science experts
      Training for restaurant personnel
      Resource materials, including brochures, practical tips and
      information about alternatives
      Provide 3 month grace period (July 1, 2007 – Oct. 1, 2007) with no
      fines for items in the 6 month phase-out category
      Provide 3 month grace period (July 1, 2008 – Oct. 1, 2008) with no
      fines for items in the 18 month phase-out category
      Create separate category of violations which will be posted and the
      web but will not determine pass/fail of routine sanitary inspections

      A summary of all comments, including lists of those in support or
      opposition, is available online at
      comments-response.pdf. A total of 2,340 written comments were
      received (including 53 people who spoke at the October 30 public
      hearing). Overall, 2,266 (95%) comments supported the proposal and
      74 were in opposition. Unqualified support for the proposed changes
      came from numerous leading national and local professional
      societies, academic institutions, and local hospitals and advocacy
      groups, including the American Medical Association (AMA), National
      Hispanic Medical Association (NHMA), American College of Cardiology
      (ACC), American Cancer Society (ACS), American Diabetes Association
      (ADA), American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), New York Academy of
      Medicine, Columbia University Medical Center, Harvard University,
      New York University, Institute for Urban Family Health, and Northern
      Manhattan Perinatal Partnership.


      O'Reilly: U.S. may have to "level cities like Tehran"
      Wednesday December 6, 2006


      On the December 5 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show,
      Bill O'Reilly asserted that "we may have to" "level cities like
      Tehran, kill hundreds of thousands of people," which, he explained,
      the United States has "already done in Germany and Japan." O'Reilly
      then argued that such a move would be necessary, for example, "[i]f
      Iran takes over Iraq and then fosters a revolution inside Saudi
      Arabia ... and gets control of all the oil and says we're not
      selling to the USA, we are going to level that country, because
      you ... need gasoline to live."

      From the December 5 edition of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with
      Bill O'Reilly:

      O'REILLY: The United States will never be conquered by Muslims --
      ever. But you don't want it to reach the point where, we have to,
      example, you know, level cities like Tehran, kill hundreds of
      thousands of people, which we may have to do -- which we have
      already done in Germany and Japan. OK? We have already killed
      hundreds of thousands of people on one day. Now, do we want to do
      that again? Of course not, but we may have to.

      Example: If Iran takes over Iraq and then fosters a revolution
      inside Saudi Arabia, which Iran wants to do, and overthrows that
      kingdom and gets control of all the oil and says we're not selling
      to the USA, we are going to level that country, because you,
      [caller], need gasoline to live. See? Now that's the biggest example
      I can give you.

      — R.C.


      Carter nixes debate with outspoken prof
      Fri Dec 15, 2006
      Associated Press

      Former President Carter turned down a request to debate Alan
      Dershowitz about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, saying the
      outspoken Harvard law professor "knows nothing about the situation."

      Carter, author of a new book advocating "peace not apartheid" in the
      region, said he will not visit Brandeis University to discuss the
      book because the university requested he debate Dershowitz.

      "I don't want to have a conversation even indirectly with
      Dershowitz," Carter said in Friday's Boston Globe. "There is no
      need ... to debate somebody who, in my opinion, knows nothing about
      the situation in Palestine."

      The school's debate request, Carter said, is proof that many in the
      United States are unwilling to hear an alternative view on the
      nation's most taboo foreign policy issue, Israel's occupation of
      Palestinian territory.

      Carter brokered the 1978 Camp David peace accord between Israel and
      Egypt and received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002. He said the goal
      of his book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," is to provoke
      dialogue and action.

      "There is no debate in America about anything that would be critical
      of Israel," he said.

      The reference to "apartheid," the word for South Africa's former
      system of state-sanctioned racial segregation, has angered some
      rabbis because it appears to equate that system with the treatment
      of Palestinians.

      "President Carter said he wrote the book because he wanted to
      encourage more debate; then why won't he debate?" said Dershowitz, a
      vocal First Amendment advocate who has worked for O.J. Simpson and
      other high-profile clients.

      Brandeis was founded in 1948 as a nonsectarian university under the
      sponsorship of the American Jewish community. Carter said he
      initially was interested in going there.

      "I thought it would be a good idea to go to a campus that had a lot
      of Jewish students and get a lot questions," he said. But then the
      initial proposal evolved into a plan for a debate.


      Thursday, Dec. 14, 2006
      What Has Mel Gibson Got Against the Church?
      Christianity makes only a brief appearance in his film Apocalypto.
      And it's not exactly welcomed

      For the Christian viewer, the biggest question about Mel Gibson's
      movie Apocalypto is: why does its hero turn away from the Cross at
      the end?

      All in all, there's not a lot of Christ — passionate or otherwise —
      in Apocalypto, Mel Gibson's first film since The Passion of the
      Christ. But a crucifix finally shows up at the film's end, and the
      film's response to it is surprisingly equivocal.

      The movie tells the story of a peaceful 16th-century jungle-dweller
      named Jaguar Paw. The first quarter of the film presents his idyllic
      village as a kind of Eden. The second quarter is a vision of Hell,
      as a raiding party for the nearby Mayan empire torches the town,
      rapes the women and drags the men to the Mayan capital as featured
      guests at a monstrous and ongoing sacrifice to the gods. JP watches
      in horror as a priest has several of his friends spread-eagled on
      squat stone, then hacks out their still-beating hearts and displays
      them to a howling crowd. JP narrowly avoids the same fate, escapes,
      and spends most of the rest of the film picking off an armed pursuit
      party, one by one, in classic action-film fashion.

      It is only at the very end that Christianity makes a brief but
      portentous appearance, aboard a fleet of Spanish ships that appears
      suddenly on the horizon. JP and his long-suffering wife watch from
      the jungle as a small boat approaches shore bearing a long-bearded,
      shiny-helmeted explorer and a kneeling priest holding high a
      crucifix-topped staff. "Should we join them?" asks his wife. "No,"
      he replies: They should go back to the jungle, their home. Roll

      Given Gibson's fervent Christianity, you might have expected JP to
      run up and genuflect. Why does he turn away?

      My colleague, film critic Richard Schickel, has observed that Gibson
      has little use for the institutional Roman Catholic church,
      preferring a "less mainstream version of his faith." True, but the
      Traditionalists with whom Gibson is often associated are defined
      primarily by their objections to the liberalizations under the
      Second Vatican Council of 1962-5 — not an issue in Jaguar Paw's day.

      Another explanation is that the director has always been better at
      Crucifixions than at Resurrections. Just as the risen Christ seemed
      like something of a tack-on to The Passion, Mel may have little
      interest in how Christian culture might reconfigure either the
      peaceful village-dwellers' way of life or the bloodthirsty Mayans'.

      The third possibility, it seems to me, is that Gibson does know —
      and wants no part of it. I tend toward that last one because it
      reflects a learning curve of my own. About a year ago I visited an
      exhibit on another Mexican civilization, the Aztecs, at New York's
      Guggenheim Museum. The show was cleverly arranged. Visitors walked
      up the Guggenheim's giant spiral, the first few twists of which were
      devoted to the Aztecs' stunning stylized carvings of snakes, eagles
      and other god/animals, and explanations of how the ingenious Aztecs
      filled in a huge lake to lay the foundation for Tenochtitlan, now
      Mexico City.

      It was only about halfway up the spiral — when it had become harder
      to run screaming for an exit — that one encountered a grey-green
      stone about three feet high. It was sleek and beautiful — almost
      like a Brancusi sculpture, I thought — until I read the label. It
      was a sacrifice stone of the sort in the movie. Not a reproduction,
      not a non-functioning ceremonial model, but the real thing. People
      had died on this. I felt shocked and a little angry — it was like
      coming across a gas chamber at an exhibit of interior design.

      But I kept walking, and at the very top of the museum I encountered
      another object that might be considered an answer to the sinister
      rock: a stone cross, carved after the Spanish had conquered the
      Aztecs and were attempting to convert them to Catholicism. Rather
      than Jesus's full body, it bore a series of small relief carvings:
      his head and wounded hands, blood drops — and a sacrificial Aztec

      How striking, I thought. Here was a potent work of iconographic
      propaganda using the very symbols of a brutal religion to turn its
      values inside out, manipulating its images so that they celebrated
      not the sacrifice, but the person who was sacrificed. Visually, at
      least, it seemed an elegant and admirable transition. And after
      seeing Apocalypto, I wondered why Gibson hadn't created the
      cinematic equivalent: an ode to the progression out of savagery,
      through the vehicle of Christianity.

      The answer, of course, is that the cross's iconography was a lot
      simpler than Mexican history. I called Charles C. Mann, author of
      the highly respected history 1491: New Revelations of the Americas
      Before Columbus. Mann first noted a couple of anachronisms in the
      film. The Mayan capital, including any great temple of the sort in
      the film, had mysteriously disappeared 700 years before the Spanish
      arrived. Moreover, although the Mayans probably engaged in some
      human sacrifice, there is no evidence that they practiced it on the
      industrial scale depicted in the movie For that, as the Guggenheim
      exhibit suggested, one would have to look 300 miles west to the
      Aztecs, who had made it their religious centerpiece. Hernan Cortes,
      (who probably rounded upward, since he conquered them) claimed the
      Aztecs dispatched between three and four thousand souls a year that
      way. Why Gibson decided to turn the Mayans into Aztecs is anyone's

      Most interesting, however, was Mann's observation that if the boat
      Jaguar Paw sees is indeed the 1519 landing party of Cortes, (who
      pushed quickly through what remained of Mayan territory on his way
      to the bloody battle of Tenochtitlan), the man holding up the cross
      was no particular friend to the indians. It was not until 1537, Mann
      said, that, after considerable debate both ways, Pope Paul III got
      around to proclaiming that "Indians themselves indeed are true men"
      and should not be "deprived of their liberty." In the intervening 18
      years roughly a third of Mexico's 25 million indigenous population
      died of smallpox the Europeans brought with them, and the Spanish
      had enslaved most of the remaining six million able-bodied men. And
      that's not counting the 100,000 Aztecs Cortes killed in at
      Tenochtitlan alone.

      So here is the conundrum. If you had to choose between a culture
      that placed ritualized human slaughter at the center of its faith,
      but that only managed to kill 4,000 people a year; and a culture
      that put the sacrificial Lamb of God at the center of the universe
      but somehow found its way to countenancing the enslavement of
      millions and the slaughter of hundreds of thousands in the same
      neighborhood, which would be more appealing?

      Perhaps Gibson's problem is with the institutional church after all.
      Not the institutional church of Vatican II, but the church that
      managed to get so mixed up with worldy power that it was able to
      side with the centurians rather than with Christ for thos crucial 18

      And perhaps he was right to have Jaguar Paw, having sampled the
      worst that the first civilization had to offer, take one look at the
      arrival of the second, and head back into the woods.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.